Cap-and-trade issues

I am disturbed by E. Thomas McClanahan’s column (7/5, Opinion) concerning the pending cap and trade legislation.

I certainly agree that the costs to the consumer are gong to be much higher than our politicians want to admit to. However, my question is: If not that, what?

There seems to be little scientific disagreement that the Earth is warming and heading for a potentially disastrous outcome in the next 50 to 100 years. There is some disagreement about the degree to which this warming is because of natural causes or man-made causes.

But there is also little scientific disagreement that, regardless of the cause of this warming, all of the carbon we are putting into the atmosphere can’t possibly help the situation and, in fact, greatly exacerbates it. So to do nothing about the man-made contributions now seems to be a gross dereliction of our legacy to future generations.

In my opinion, the only way that any change in current behavior and energy use practices is going to happen is if the people have to pay for not only the current costs of energy but also the future impact of the consequences of those choices. If you truly believe that there is no problem with global warming, I wish you had stated that so we could put your comments into their proper context.

Otherwise, if you agree that global warming is a real threat to the future, I hope you can offer an alternative solution other than to just say “no” to cap and trade.

Jim Albrecht

Lenexa

If cap and trade passes, all states will have to abide by California clean air standards.

Are you ready for the EPA inspectors?

Wayne Kramer

Olathe

Comments

[CaptainFreon]

I am disturbed by the comments of Jim Albrecht and Wayne Kramer. Their opinions are not mathematically sound.

Let's add them up. Power plant #1 kicks out 50 pounds of "stuff". Power plant #2 kicks out 30 pounds of "stuff" and power plant #3 kicks out 25 pounds of "stuff". The limit per regulations is 35 pounds of "stuff". Therefore #1 is forced to buy five pounds of coupons from #2 and 10 pounds of coupons from #3. Now everybody is within the EPA's 35 pound "stuff" guideline.

So let's add all these up:

The good math is 35+35+35 equals a total of 105 pounds of "stuff" per the EPA. Thank God, the planet is saved!

The earth killer math is 50+30+25 equals 105 pounds of unauthorized percentages of "stuff", God help us the planet is doomed!

From my point of view: Only blind bleeding heart liberals who in their heart of hearts want to turn the world into rainbows and sunshine are the only ones gullible enough to swallow Obama's corrupt Chicago style of political lies. If you think Bush and Cheney were corrupt about Blackwater, you best wake up to someone far more gifted in speech, intelligence and charisma then Bush and Cheney. Obama is backroom dealing in ways so clever it would confound most people.

Jim Albrecht and Wayne Kramer... You have swallowed the entire hook, line and sinker.

[JoCo]

Let me entertain YOU KeeWee,

Most of us are on here to discuss and offer IDEAS. Got any?

I'm a "green weinie"? Glad you can glean that from the "know-little" I've confessed myself to be. Now, if you don't mind, I'll get back to the regularly scheduled program.

Oh, wait. I get it. You start with a capitalized triplicate green weenie alert because you are about to speak.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

Do the green weenie morons know what a AQCS is? Probably about as much as Joe Biden knows about the "number" of the $18M website that he is in charge of that will post bogus numbers to appease the sheep.

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

Cap and trade is bogus. it will only increase the costs acorss the board for ALL businesses and consumers in the USA.
How ironic some idiots want to increase the demand for electricity and reduce the supply avilable then be the first to whine that "it costs too much".
They just do not understand wind power is not sustainable as a stand alone source.
Math....who would have thought.

[Kee]

WARNING, WARNING, WARNING. Green Weenie Alert, Green Weenie Alert (see letters)

Nimrod Alert, Nimrod Alert, Nimrod Alert, (see Jo Jack and Gayhawk comments)

A laugh riot every day...

[JoCo]

Well, Jayhawk, it IS unfettered, altho I've heard tell here that the Star has exhibited other more troubling letter censoring than length limitation.

[JayhawkinMO]

Omigawd, if a letter submission must be 150 words or less to be published, this venue should have the same limitation... Yawn...

[JoCo]

pmcw,

Well, I read a bit and see that the CCCAA was extended nationally in 1990, during the GHWB tenure. Still reading:
http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/docs/2003AQMPChap6.pdf

[JoCo]

pmcw,

What, then, is your take on the viability of the California standards becoming national?

[pmcw]

The California clean air standards are nothing compared to what the amended section 304 of the cap and trade bill will levy. This section totally removes building code control from state and local governments and IMMEDIATELY implements a very vaguely written federal standard that applies to ALL new (residential and commercial construction. And this is only one of the MANY gotcha's in the bill.

The second greatest economic power held by government is to tax; the greatest is to selectively un-tax. With this seemingly innocuous power, Congress elicits favors from all those who are willing to pay the tab. To radically expand this power is the central goal of Cap and Trade legislation.

For months my friends and most of the pundits I follow thought there was so little chance of Cap and Trade legislation passing, they ignored the issue and, at best, humored me when I pointed to it as the greatest economic threat facing the U.S. economy today. However, with it now apparent there is real threat of this legislation passing the House; thinking people are beginning to take notice. Unfortunately, it may be too late.

Because Congress is not encumbered by truth in advertising laws, the Cap and Trade bill, which even some Democrats call "Cap and Tax," has been named the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009" or, as its called inside the beltway, "ACES." This title accompanies two House Resolutions, H.R. 2454 and H.R. 2998. When writing your Senators, I suggest referencing the full title (American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009) and both of the bill numbers noted above. This is a point in time when being abundantly clear is of the utmost importance.

The important thing to understand about ACES is that it is not at all designed to do what its name suggests; as a matter of fact, when viewed on a global basis, it may have just the opposite effect; there are strong arguments to be made supporting the contention that ACES would cause higher global CO2 emissions and significantly detract from our national security even beyond the nearly unbeatable fact it would be ruinous for our economy.

There are many easy, painless and even economically positive ways we can encourage reduced CO2 emissions and stimulate the development of new technologies that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which is what is implied by the "security" part of the title. However, this bill will not accomplish these goals. What this bill will accomplish is a mechanism for massive corruption, the strengthening of the power of congressional incumbency, the establishment of a full employment act for lawyers and the debasement of the aggregate U.S. economy. Yes, those are bold words, but I can back them up.

If this bill passes, Congress will have the power to decide who gets to release CO2, how much they will get to release, how much they will have to pay if they want to release more than the congressional dictated allocation and who they must pay. Because nearly everything we do from raising cattle to growing crops to powering our electric grid to manufacturing everything we eat, wear and use emits CO2, the implication is Congress will have absolute control over not just our economy as a whole, but also in naming the winners and losers.

Make no mistake; what our Congress is trying to do is levy a huge carbon tax that will make virtually everything we do today more expensive and then give itself the ultimate and nearly infinite power to selectively un-tax without the annoying encumbrances or inconveniences of due process. Congress knows that if it is successful in this ruse, it will have industry cowering at its feet to beg for just one more bowl of CO2 credits and, with that, all the campaign contributions and perks you would expect to change hands when favors are denominated in tens or, in some cases, hundreds of billions of dollars.

When you write your Senators, which is something you can easily do today through the House web site, www.senate.gov, you should ask for two things. First, that they sign an affidavit stating they have read and understand the contents of both H.R. 2454 and H.R. 2998 and, second, to not only vote against the Senate version of ACES, but also mount a campaign to influence others to vote against them as well.

The bottom line here is that there is nothing that threatens our economy, our freedom, our state's rights, our class mobility and our security more than what is being deceitfully presented as the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009." The power it will grant Congress is absolute and its wording is so duplicitous that it will clog our courts for years, which will do nothing more than redirect what money is left in our economy to lawyers. We need legislation designed to give us more scientists, engineers and doctors, not more lawyers and avenues to corrupt our political process more than it already is.